One huge map

Discuss anticipated or desired features here
llehsadam
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:40 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

One huge map

Postby llehsadam » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:30 am

How possible would it be to make every point of the whole campaign map playable?

The kingdom could be an average sized kingdom in Europe (like Bavaria which is around 70,000 sq. km) and if we assume that every tile is 5m by 5m, then only 2,800,000,000 tiles are needed for the whole map. With today's computers, that could easily be a 56,000 by 50,000 pixel image with every pixel (through color) describing a tiles elevation and type on the map. Players could pick the new city location in a green zone set by the campaign and build there. This would require a different way of terrain generation but is doable.

This also allows for players to easily "paint" huge countries to play on.

MegaNooby
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:37 pm

Postby MegaNooby » Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:53 pm

"llehsadam" wrote:How possible would it be to make every point of the whole campaign map playable?

The kingdom could be an average sized kingdom in Europe (like Bavaria which is around 70,000 sq. km) and if we assume that every tile is 5m by 5m, then only 2,800,000,000 tiles are needed for the whole map. With today's computers, that could easily be a 56,000 by 50,000 pixel image with every pixel (through color) describing a tiles elevation and type on the map. Players could pick the new city location in a green zone set by the campaign and build there. This would require a different way of terrain generation but is doable.

This also allows for players to easily "paint" huge countries to play on.



This would be in 2D right? Cause if it's a big map in 3D than that's gonna be way too much and probably glitch alot.

llehsadam
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:40 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

A little more detail...

Postby llehsadam » Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:51 am

From what I understand the game is going to be in the same 2D isometric format like Pharaoh, Emperor or Caesar III. These sort of games don't actually have huge requirements graphics-wise, so perhaps it would be possible to have infinite terrain generation. But I'm not proposing that.

In the other games (Pharaoh, Emperor...) there always was a campaign map. I thought making every point on the map playable as a single finite map would be cool. Of course in reality the map the player chooses from is smaller than the actual map the game uses to generate terrain (because it would be so huge). Roads between cities would be represented on the map by an actual road you could later build on and every building you build is represented on the map.

This is a pretty far fetched idea that might not ft into this game just because it would require a total reworking of map function and purpose. I might just go ahead and do it myself at some point in a later project.

sakasiru
Posts: 1968
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:26 am
Location: Germany

Postby sakasiru » Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:29 pm

In one of the later SimCity games (3000, maybe?) you could start a map, design it, build on it etc, and then you could choose an adjacent map and build there too and make connections. You could make a giant waste dump city and get money from buying all the waste from neighbouring cities, which would get rid of their trash through this trade when you played them. You could trade energy and water as well, so if you regularly switched between the cities, they grew together and each specialized a bit.

I think something like this would work fine, you could build on your city map in detail, save and close it and then work on the neighbouring shire, which would be affected through trade and maybe some other factors, like lots of crime swapping over or many travellers if it's near some important pilgrimate site. You could always go back to some old scenario site and build it up a bit to provide more ressources or better wares to your current city.

alincarpetman
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 8:24 pm
Location: United States

Postby alincarpetman » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:32 am

This sounds interesting and got me thinking - it seems bigger maps with multiple cities either in the campaign menu or open play maybe wasn't done that much, if at all, in any old 2d city building game as well as some new 3d ones? In rts game series like Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, etc there are huge maps with computer and human multiplayers that interact with each other, but in city building games it seems this wasn't done.

I'm guessing one reason is because these games weren't strictly military games about army building and conquest, but also it might be a more difficult game to play if it was against a computer ai player for example. You might be focused on your food production while they build a military and come to conquer you, and you know how fragile a city can be in Caesar 3 through Emperor, just one group of any army type can destroy your entire city if you are unprotected, unless you got Seth's blessing or something. Or they could come chop down trees in your area if there weren't any in game restrictions for certain actions such as in games like Rise of Nations you could only gather resources in the territory you owned by radius of influence emanating from a home city.

It's fun to imagine though - playing a "skirmish" or open play scenario with multiple computer or human players on the same huge map. If the entire map was completely visible without any "fog of war" or black unexplored territory, you would see the player putting down buildings and going about their city building business. You could forge alliances and make trade networks as a particular city could focus on some unique goods, or maybe collaborate on building a monument or military strike. Spies, messengers and trade units could be seen in real time traversing the terrain.

As llehsadam mentioned, having bigger maps (not necessarily infinite) with multiple cities in 2d with today's computers shouldn't be a problem for system requirements but I'm not sure how that would fit into a city building game, maybe as a future possibility or a different kind of game entirely.

sakasiru
Posts: 1968
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:26 am
Location: Germany

Postby sakasiru » Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:14 am

I'm not a fan of multiplayer, or the computer as enemy. I'd like the idea of you being the trade partner or even enemy of yourself, though.

In early CBs like Pharaoh you had a city and initiated trade with trade partners. They had a certain amount of wares, if you needed more you were out of luck, with no chance to increase their output. They also didn't care if you were their competitior, they would sell you cheaper gems so you could produce the more expensive jewelry on your own, instead of selling only the jewelry to sack the profit for themselves.
Would you like the computer to behave like that? No. Would you behave like that yourself? Yes! So If you were at one time the ruler of the gem producing city who lives of mining and producing jewelry, you would now as ruler of your new city gladly buy the jewelry produced there, because it's helping your other city after all, too. You would also know that they have few space for crop raising, so you would make them a good deal sending grain or flour, so your gem city can expand once you switch back on playing it. By controlling both sides of the trades, you would ensure the trade is fair and also avoid trying to produce everything yourself in one city, which would make trade moot or confined to basic ressources you don't have available.

Maybe later in the campaign, you would even be able to choose which city to play for a certain goal, so you can pick the one best suited for it (a rich city for building a cathedral, a fortified city with troops for engaging a war, your biggest city for meeting a population goal and so on).

velociraptor2000
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:53 pm

Postby velociraptor2000 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:58 pm

Believe me. City building games aren't mean to be coop/mp ones. Just immagine the "fun" you will have building a city here and few squares nearby your allied player building wrong buildings or placing havoc or having some fun and sabotaging your city or even stop playing. In fact long term games aren't mean to be multiplayer.


Return to “Gameplay Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest